<div dir="ltr">Hey Johny, my concern with that proposal is that instead of one large group of people arguing with each other, it will be several small groups of people arguing within the group and with other groups. There's no clear way to handle when decisions affect more than one group or even which groups they affect. I think a lot of things would turn into "this affects everyone" decisions, and then we're back to consensus again.</div>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">
off-load more decisions to interest groups and special-purpose teams.<br></div>
....<div class=""><br>
Each group and team elects or appoints a representative for transparent but small org-wide meetings.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
With this arrangement, even org-wide meetings could operate by consensus-- because it would be a small group.<br>
<br>
(i suggest this as a long-time opponent of consensus)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>